Originally Posted by
HeruMew
I have sent a couple reports to the DNR, as this topic came up recently in MN, and those reports found mixed data.
Lead WAS seeping into the ground, but NOT at a rate that is concerning or not naturally manageable.
It was also determined that the natural oxidization of lead bullets will actually "trap" most of the harmful lead in, and avoid most contamination.
I can see if I have the email I sent before about these reports. I DO NOT agree with "Lead Ammo Bans". If there is an issue, it's at ranges, and if that's the case, I would be more than willing to pay extra for a range membership knowing they have to clean the berms out every so often. But, the reality is, there is very little science of any kind to say, with strong evidence, that it is causing true environmental impacts.
I would say the cost of ammunition should be available to all hunters, and requiring ammunition that costs significantly more, could segregate those in lower-class/poverty scale from affording ammunition that could feed their families. A stretch? Maybe not so. Many of people still live off the land, and a box of field ammo for a couple bucks, is less than steel or copper ammo.
Beyond that, if someone can do an irrefutable study, I would conform if there is true environmental impact. I like meh fish. I like meh hunting. So I want to preserve that.
I won't, however, allow a group of any individuals (save for those ineligible to legally hunt or own firearms) to be segregated and hunting for food becomes an elitist issue that only those with decent bank can afford to hunt humanely.
Just my, politically fueled, bias/opinion.
I am not a closed minded fool, but I also haven't seen anything to tell otherwise that we are losing wildlife and nature to lead bullets/shot.
Bookmarks